RE: A Communist Definition of Property
All economic systems are capitalist, including communism, fascism, Trumpism, and other collectivist Statist doctrines. No type of economy or essentially any society can develop and sustain itself without the use of capital by some group of people; which are all "private" in organization even if they are under the guise of being "public". The nature of the State through history is that it's a private criminal element that takes over and dominates society for self-serving interests, re-allocating capital for whatever ends they think is necessary.
The only difference in the types of economies is whether they are laissez faire and market oriented or monopolist and interventionist as is the case with virtually all those represented by nation-states.
"The nature of the State is that it is a private criminal element that takes over and dominates others for self-serving interests."
That is the nature of capitalism, the state takes different forms under different systems
you don't seem to understand communist theory at all, and I'm still an anarchist.
https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf
This book is called state and revolution, its a good read
Anarchism is in total oposition to communism. Nazism is almost equal to communism, both have socialistic roots where nazism has the nation as bonus point.
the end goal of communism is a stateless classless society, what you have been reading is propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
anarchist capitalism is the oxymoron here, to quote the first self-proclaimed anarchist "property is theft"
I've been living communism. That is the difference between theories and youtube videos, real living it. It is a cancer.
Who controls the use of capital under communism; or maybe capital ceases to exist. How would you determine the factors of production?
if you were to ask an authoritarian they would say the only way to maintain a state where the workers are to control the means of production they must organize into a form of state based directly on the workers, where only those who fight for worker control can themselves be allowed to control it.
it depends on who you ask. As an anarchist I would answer it is run by free-association and free-use. It is common ownership, nobody controls it except those who are using it
Yes, although I don't see how a communist regime would work without a State. The State is by definition a private criminal class of people who use political means as a way to get what they want. This has been well-established by marxist, anarchists, and even classical liberals.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
here is a basic book explaining it
well then you don't know what communism is, all most people know is propaganda.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays
a nice book on anarchy, because i have a feeling you don't understand that either
Have you noticed you just send me links to books without your own personal comments besides saying "I don't know anything?"—which you're right I don't. I could give you dozens of titles of books regarding the nature of the State and anarchy but I don't because I don't have any insecurity regarding the knowledge on the subjects.
I don't believe in any system. They are all made by man so they are fallible by their very nature. I only believe in the individual and free association. If thats what communism is then I don't have a problem with it.
Agreed.
Recognizing fallibility and the fact that nobody has access to all information, and therefore may never be able to ensure their conclusions are valid, should logically be at the foundation of any ideology.
Systems that don't do this become dogma when contrary information exists.